Showing posts with label colonial democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonial democracy. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Flames of Freedom (short story)
The Flames of Freedom
(click on title for short story)
Opening paragraph:
"I shall always feel affection and respect for the man who wanted to destroy western civilisation. I remember clearly how we met – that was an adventure in itself. We met through Faria, and I met her at Hotel Poshur at Mongla."
This is a story of how western foreign policy affects the lives of distant people: it begins by the Poshur River at Mongla and ends at Teknaf. The themes are an insatiable longing for peace and the inevitability of violence.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Another rigged election?
Did Bangladesh have a free and fair election? Westerners think so...but then they would, wouldn't they?
According to a reliable bureaucratic source, the election of 2001 was rigged in favour of the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by the wife of General Zia, against the Awami League. A brilliant mathematical analysis reveals fraud in two out of three elections: "One example concerns an analysis of the last three elections in Bangladesh. The 1991 election showed no strange results. For the 1996 election some 2% of results were problematic. And fully 9% of the results in 2001 failed the test. The 2001 election was fiercely contested. Yet monitors from the Carter Centre and the European Union found the election to be acceptably, if not entirely, free and fair. Tests like Dr. Mebane's one could provide monitors with quantitative estimates of exactly how free and fair an election has been....*" And that's the last thing that western election monitors in banana republics would want!
Johan Perera reported form Sri Lanka that “it seems the ritual of voting in the Third World is not so much for the purpose of democracy, but is rather for the purpose of legitimising stable government.” His observation was based on what had been happening in Sri Lanka’s 2000 elections. “Election observers attached to the local monitoring bodies, People’s Action for Free and Fair Election (PAFFREL) and the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV), expressed shock and revulsion at what they saw happening in the Kandy district on the day of the election. They saw armed gangs of 20 to 100 going about from polling station to polling station....The rigging of the election that took place in the Kandy district extended to many other parts of the country. In the election monitoring offices in Colombo, telephone calls and faxes came in a flood from the election observers in the field. They gave detailed accounts of what was happening....In a post-election statement, the Election Commissioner stated that in the context of the conditions that apply in the Third World the election should be considered satisfactory....Unfortunately, it was not only a chastened election commissioner who thought this way. The teams of foreign observers from the European Union and British Parliament seemed to think that way too.”**
* The Economist, February 24 2007, p 82
** Report published in Holiday, Dhaka, Bangladesh, October 20th, 2000, page 4
According to a reliable bureaucratic source, the election of 2001 was rigged in favour of the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by the wife of General Zia, against the Awami League. A brilliant mathematical analysis reveals fraud in two out of three elections: "One example concerns an analysis of the last three elections in Bangladesh. The 1991 election showed no strange results. For the 1996 election some 2% of results were problematic. And fully 9% of the results in 2001 failed the test. The 2001 election was fiercely contested. Yet monitors from the Carter Centre and the European Union found the election to be acceptably, if not entirely, free and fair. Tests like Dr. Mebane's one could provide monitors with quantitative estimates of exactly how free and fair an election has been....*" And that's the last thing that western election monitors in banana republics would want!
Johan Perera reported form Sri Lanka that “it seems the ritual of voting in the Third World is not so much for the purpose of democracy, but is rather for the purpose of legitimising stable government.” His observation was based on what had been happening in Sri Lanka’s 2000 elections. “Election observers attached to the local monitoring bodies, People’s Action for Free and Fair Election (PAFFREL) and the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV), expressed shock and revulsion at what they saw happening in the Kandy district on the day of the election. They saw armed gangs of 20 to 100 going about from polling station to polling station....The rigging of the election that took place in the Kandy district extended to many other parts of the country. In the election monitoring offices in Colombo, telephone calls and faxes came in a flood from the election observers in the field. They gave detailed accounts of what was happening....In a post-election statement, the Election Commissioner stated that in the context of the conditions that apply in the Third World the election should be considered satisfactory....Unfortunately, it was not only a chastened election commissioner who thought this way. The teams of foreign observers from the European Union and British Parliament seemed to think that way too.”**
* The Economist, February 24 2007, p 82
** Report published in Holiday, Dhaka, Bangladesh, October 20th, 2000, page 4
Thursday, January 1, 2009
US Ambassador Votes in Bangladesh Election
Why did the US Ambassador to Bangladesh, James Moriarty, want the nationalist (described fallaciously as 'secularist') Awami League to win the election of 2008 – which they did, with a two-thirds majority?
This is not the first time that an election has been rigged on the sly – the last election of 2001 was rigged in favour of the BNP and its cronies, according to a reliable bureaucratic source (as well as mathematical analysis, see http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RSPPSQS) .
After all, it was the United States (plus Europe) that wanted the two banshees – I mean, begums – out of power, permanently. This was the famous "minus-two formula", backed by the western donors and the army (itself backed by the donors). After all, these two women – Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia – were giving democracy a bad name and creating another failed, Muslim state: the last thing the west needed.
But the minus-two plan backfired: there can be no alternative leaders in Bangladesh because there can be no democracy in Bangladesh. The old dynasties were destined to remain, as in India and Pakistan.
So, Plan B, it seems, was to allow elections, but make sure the anti-mullah Awami League won a landslide (like the pro-mullah BNP did in 2001): the world can still be shown that Islam and democracy are not oil and water.
The 2001 experiment – allowing the pro-mullah party and indeed quite a few mullahs to win – had not worked. The idea then was to co-opt the mullahs into the democratic process: but the best-laid plans....
Now what?
Militants have sworn to assassinate Sheikh Hasina. Perhaps the west will allow that to happen, and then ask the army to take over (again). That would be a Machiavellian minus-one policy.
At any rate, westerners know that democracy will never work so long as these two women are there, with their blindly loyal followers. Not that George Bush is out, will Barack Obama continue to try and spread democracy? Or is he pragmatic enough to realise that some things just aren't possible? After all, it was under Bill Clinton that Pervez Musharraf took over power in Pakistan. His team is back in Washington, and they do not appear to have an evangelical passion for the worldwide expansion of democracy.
At any rate, it all depends on Washington – not the people of Bangladesh.
This is not the first time that an election has been rigged on the sly – the last election of 2001 was rigged in favour of the BNP and its cronies, according to a reliable bureaucratic source (as well as mathematical analysis, see http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RSPPSQS) .
After all, it was the United States (plus Europe) that wanted the two banshees – I mean, begums – out of power, permanently. This was the famous "minus-two formula", backed by the western donors and the army (itself backed by the donors). After all, these two women – Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia – were giving democracy a bad name and creating another failed, Muslim state: the last thing the west needed.
But the minus-two plan backfired: there can be no alternative leaders in Bangladesh because there can be no democracy in Bangladesh. The old dynasties were destined to remain, as in India and Pakistan.
So, Plan B, it seems, was to allow elections, but make sure the anti-mullah Awami League won a landslide (like the pro-mullah BNP did in 2001): the world can still be shown that Islam and democracy are not oil and water.
The 2001 experiment – allowing the pro-mullah party and indeed quite a few mullahs to win – had not worked. The idea then was to co-opt the mullahs into the democratic process: but the best-laid plans....
Now what?
Militants have sworn to assassinate Sheikh Hasina. Perhaps the west will allow that to happen, and then ask the army to take over (again). That would be a Machiavellian minus-one policy.
At any rate, westerners know that democracy will never work so long as these two women are there, with their blindly loyal followers. Not that George Bush is out, will Barack Obama continue to try and spread democracy? Or is he pragmatic enough to realise that some things just aren't possible? After all, it was under Bill Clinton that Pervez Musharraf took over power in Pakistan. His team is back in Washington, and they do not appear to have an evangelical passion for the worldwide expansion of democracy.
At any rate, it all depends on Washington – not the people of Bangladesh.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Charles Taylor and modern 'altruism'
I was terribly impressed by Charles Taylor's understanding of modern 'altruism': it is a codified, moralized altruism and blind to the consequences that it involves (A Secular Age, by Charles Taylor).
I shudder to think how many fathers are going to be burying their politically active sons after the election imposed by western governments this year (interestingly, Taylor mentions Mandela: he lied to his people about the first election - though Taylor doesn't mention this, probably out of politeness – but he approves of the code-defying behaviour of Mandela: he was after a 'higher' good, even if it wasn't rights-based, that is, formulaic. He waived the rights of the 'victim' for peace, to avoid civil war.)
Taylor contrasts this sort of 'goodness' with agape, which is a 'gut' feeling of love. Agape extends towards the living, breathing individual: the good Samaritan crossed a line, not because any code told him to (on the contrary), but because he was moved by
a man's suffering.
So many women have been raped in Bangladesh by politically active young men in the service of the political parties - and so many of these young men have killed each other!
Doesn't this move anyone, as the Samaritan was moved? NGO after NGO has evaded the subject, never mind western governments.
Here is an article that might be of interest:
http://unlikelystories.org/sayeed0808.shtml A Defence of Religion
It is, in fact, a defence of the irrational: I come at the subject from economics, since that's the discipline I (literally) laboured under. The whole idea of a rational producer-cum-consumer seems repellent since contrary to the evidence right under our noses!
I shudder to think how many fathers are going to be burying their politically active sons after the election imposed by western governments this year (interestingly, Taylor mentions Mandela: he lied to his people about the first election - though Taylor doesn't mention this, probably out of politeness – but he approves of the code-defying behaviour of Mandela: he was after a 'higher' good, even if it wasn't rights-based, that is, formulaic. He waived the rights of the 'victim' for peace, to avoid civil war.)
Taylor contrasts this sort of 'goodness' with agape, which is a 'gut' feeling of love. Agape extends towards the living, breathing individual: the good Samaritan crossed a line, not because any code told him to (on the contrary), but because he was moved by
a man's suffering.
So many women have been raped in Bangladesh by politically active young men in the service of the political parties - and so many of these young men have killed each other!
Doesn't this move anyone, as the Samaritan was moved? NGO after NGO has evaded the subject, never mind western governments.
Here is an article that might be of interest:
http://unlikelystories.org/sayeed0808.shtml A Defence of Religion
It is, in fact, a defence of the irrational: I come at the subject from economics, since that's the discipline I (literally) laboured under. The whole idea of a rational producer-cum-consumer seems repellent since contrary to the evidence right under our noses!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
they know more about us that we know about us
When a Bangladeshi diplomat visits America, American journalists ask: "What's happening in Bangladesh?"
When an American diplomat visits Bangladesh, Bangladeshi journalists ask the same question.
When an American diplomat visits Bangladesh, Bangladeshi journalists ask the same question.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
a demagogue delivers
"First he [Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman] opposed British rule in India. After the subcontinent's partition in 1947, he denounced West Pakistan's dominance of East Pakistan with every bit as much vehemence. "Brothers," he would say to his Bengali followers, "do you know that the streets of Karachi are lined with gold? Do you want to take back that gold? Then raise your hands and join me."
TIME Magazine, Monday, Apr. 05, 1971
"And one of the worst clusters of grossly overcrowded shacks and hovels, unfit for animals to live in, lay beside the main route from one of the airports to the rich centre of the city. Visiting foreigners were appalled, not merely by what they saw and smelt, but by the apparent helpless apathy of successive political Cabinets towards this mass of human misery unmitigated on their doorstep. Probably nothing so discredited Pakistan internationally, during the confused years before the military coup, as the persisting shameful squalor along the pavements of her capital."
(Ian Stephens, Pakistan, Old Country, New Nation, Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1964, p 309)"
TIME Magazine, Monday, Apr. 05, 1971
"And one of the worst clusters of grossly overcrowded shacks and hovels, unfit for animals to live in, lay beside the main route from one of the airports to the rich centre of the city. Visiting foreigners were appalled, not merely by what they saw and smelt, but by the apparent helpless apathy of successive political Cabinets towards this mass of human misery unmitigated on their doorstep. Probably nothing so discredited Pakistan internationally, during the confused years before the military coup, as the persisting shameful squalor along the pavements of her capital."
(Ian Stephens, Pakistan, Old Country, New Nation, Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1964, p 309)"
Friday, November 7, 2008
"God Damn America"
It would appear that the election of Barack Hussein Obama has galvanised the intelligentsia of Bangladesh. According to Dr. Muzaffer Ahmed, ""From the verdict of the American people, we shall learn that the dissenting voice is more important than the supporting ones."
"It may be a lesson for our political parties that people may not accept [them] if they take any anti-people policy or go back to the old confrontational political culture," said Dilara Chowdhury. "Through active participation, people can liberate themselves from unhealthy politics which results from manipulation of the powerful and the corrupt who disempower them and undermine the democratic institutions with the help of money, the media and other instrument of control," gushed Dr Kamal Hossain.
One can draw inspiration from any event, no matter how trivial and distant, but surely there should be some relevance to the situation in our own country. For instance, I have never heard the intellectuals go ga-ga over the achievements of China, which has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Now, why might this be? Why are our binoculars trained on America, and not further east?
Barack Obama, like many American politicians, was generously larded with benefits by the mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These people allowed "regulatory capture" to take place under their very noses, because they needed the dosh. They actively encouraged the agencies to make as many loans – of whatsoever dubious quality – to as many people as possible to grab their votes. Result: the subprime meltdown, and today a world recession, pushing millions of people throughout the world back into poverty.
Barack Obama pandered to Iowan farmers saying that he would continue to subsidise biofuels – he had the interest of American farmers at heart, not the interest of the Bangladeshi poor. Biofuel subsidies caused poverty worldwide, as farmers switched out of food crops into maize. So, we received a double whammy from the US of A.
As for the complexion of the new president, I think his former pastor (whom he disowned outright after being mentored by him for years) said most eloquently what the relationship between God and America, and our prayers for the latter, should be.
"God Damn America."
Amen.
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=62088
"It may be a lesson for our political parties that people may not accept [them] if they take any anti-people policy or go back to the old confrontational political culture," said Dilara Chowdhury. "Through active participation, people can liberate themselves from unhealthy politics which results from manipulation of the powerful and the corrupt who disempower them and undermine the democratic institutions with the help of money, the media and other instrument of control," gushed Dr Kamal Hossain.
One can draw inspiration from any event, no matter how trivial and distant, but surely there should be some relevance to the situation in our own country. For instance, I have never heard the intellectuals go ga-ga over the achievements of China, which has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Now, why might this be? Why are our binoculars trained on America, and not further east?
Barack Obama, like many American politicians, was generously larded with benefits by the mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These people allowed "regulatory capture" to take place under their very noses, because they needed the dosh. They actively encouraged the agencies to make as many loans – of whatsoever dubious quality – to as many people as possible to grab their votes. Result: the subprime meltdown, and today a world recession, pushing millions of people throughout the world back into poverty.
Barack Obama pandered to Iowan farmers saying that he would continue to subsidise biofuels – he had the interest of American farmers at heart, not the interest of the Bangladeshi poor. Biofuel subsidies caused poverty worldwide, as farmers switched out of food crops into maize. So, we received a double whammy from the US of A.
As for the complexion of the new president, I think his former pastor (whom he disowned outright after being mentored by him for years) said most eloquently what the relationship between God and America, and our prayers for the latter, should be.
"God Damn America."
Amen.
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=62088
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Roman Catholic Church and dictatorship
"Latin America's crop of military dictators received no condemnation at the archbishop's hands. Where there was chaos, he reminded his bishops, people needed firm government."
- Obituary of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, The Economist, May 3 2008, p. 93
- Obituary of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, The Economist, May 3 2008, p. 93
Friday, August 15, 2008
my morally challenged elders (2)
One of my relatives (a perfect jerk) scolded me in no uncertain terms when I expressed my fervent hope that the military would take over the country (this was just before 1/11).
According to this minion of the west: "The army is for external defence, and it has no business running a country".
Well, I though to myself, none of your daughters have been raped by student politicians...if they had...!
Where did this British-period, America-inspired, Europe-indoctrinated retard get these ideas from?
Now, the bugger claims to be a devout Muslim, and he doesn't know the first thing about Muslim history - or Muslim literature.
Sheikh Sa'adi says: "A sultan rules by means of his troops."
Al-Ghazzali said: "Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife."
Al-Mawardi said: "An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by military force, so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and that the attempt to depose him would create unendurable civil strife, must of necessity be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him, exactly as obedience is required to be rendered to those who are placed in command."
These people – our ancestors – lived and thrived under, and sanctioned, complete autocracy. My devout relation had never even heard the expression 'zel Allah' – the shadow of Allah, the Muslim world's expression for a ruler.
He is the shadow of Allah because he stands between order and chaos, which is Satanic.
This freak, with whom I am unfortunately related by blood, hasn't noticed that Muslims have a history, too – a far more benign and greater history than the white masters he bends before ("The white race is the cancer in human history," observed Susan Sontag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag).
The military is only for external defence? Jeez!
Western civilisation since the Dark Ages has never had powerful kings because they couldn't raise taxes without the consent of parliament – a creature that was born in the stinking cesspool of the medieval world. (And this explains why the king and queen of Spain had to conquer the New World and enslave its inhabitants for gold and silver to fight their European wars – so that they could bypass parliament!)
WE – the Muslim world – NEVER had a Dark Age; WE have NEVER had any foul-smelling, nauseating, stomach-turning beast called 'parliament'.
Of course, I could never - much as I would have loved to! – tell mon oncle to shove democracy up his backside, to stay loyal to the west where he lives and to stop – stop! – exporting his masters' ideas here (the moron had the vapours when his son married a Hindu girl who refused to convert to Islam – he nearly went off his rocker, the modern, westernised bugger!)
But I never said all that – why not?
Because he is my murubbi, my elder – and, in our culture, you mustn't argue with an elder. He can tell me off, but I must remain silent.
That's our culture.
It is a non-democratic culture.
It is a culture of frigging obedience.
He knows it, I know it.
And yet he wants democracy, equality, argumentativeness (then why get the bends when your son marries a Hindu who won't convert to Islam!), the tearing off of pubic hair, freedom of expression, blasphemy, pornography....
Maybe I should give him a dose of his own democratic medicine and tell him to kiss my (equal) ass.
According to this minion of the west: "The army is for external defence, and it has no business running a country".
Well, I though to myself, none of your daughters have been raped by student politicians...if they had...!
Where did this British-period, America-inspired, Europe-indoctrinated retard get these ideas from?
Now, the bugger claims to be a devout Muslim, and he doesn't know the first thing about Muslim history - or Muslim literature.
Sheikh Sa'adi says: "A sultan rules by means of his troops."
Al-Ghazzali said: "Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife."
Al-Mawardi said: "An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by military force, so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and that the attempt to depose him would create unendurable civil strife, must of necessity be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him, exactly as obedience is required to be rendered to those who are placed in command."
These people – our ancestors – lived and thrived under, and sanctioned, complete autocracy. My devout relation had never even heard the expression 'zel Allah' – the shadow of Allah, the Muslim world's expression for a ruler.
He is the shadow of Allah because he stands between order and chaos, which is Satanic.
This freak, with whom I am unfortunately related by blood, hasn't noticed that Muslims have a history, too – a far more benign and greater history than the white masters he bends before ("The white race is the cancer in human history," observed Susan Sontag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag).
The military is only for external defence? Jeez!
Western civilisation since the Dark Ages has never had powerful kings because they couldn't raise taxes without the consent of parliament – a creature that was born in the stinking cesspool of the medieval world. (And this explains why the king and queen of Spain had to conquer the New World and enslave its inhabitants for gold and silver to fight their European wars – so that they could bypass parliament!)
WE – the Muslim world – NEVER had a Dark Age; WE have NEVER had any foul-smelling, nauseating, stomach-turning beast called 'parliament'.
Of course, I could never - much as I would have loved to! – tell mon oncle to shove democracy up his backside, to stay loyal to the west where he lives and to stop – stop! – exporting his masters' ideas here (the moron had the vapours when his son married a Hindu girl who refused to convert to Islam – he nearly went off his rocker, the modern, westernised bugger!)
But I never said all that – why not?
Because he is my murubbi, my elder – and, in our culture, you mustn't argue with an elder. He can tell me off, but I must remain silent.
That's our culture.
It is a non-democratic culture.
It is a culture of frigging obedience.
He knows it, I know it.
And yet he wants democracy, equality, argumentativeness (then why get the bends when your son marries a Hindu who won't convert to Islam!), the tearing off of pubic hair, freedom of expression, blasphemy, pornography....
Maybe I should give him a dose of his own democratic medicine and tell him to kiss my (equal) ass.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Carthago delenda est (article)
Carthago delenda est
(click above for article)
"Carthago Delenda Est" – these were the words uttered by Cato repeatedly to persuade his peers to destroy Carthage. The Third Punic War gives the lie to the thesis, touted by McCain and Tony Blair, that "democracies never go to war against each other". The League of Democracies is just an idea for the democracies to remove all checks on their powers.
Excerpt:
Now, why is it that democracies want to spread democracy, but autocracies don't want to spread autocracy?
It's something in the DNA, of course. I have argued that the flipside of "freedom" has been "slavery", which was widely practiced in the west, but not elsewhere . Western civilisation has been a civilisation of domination. Another Englishman made statements similar to Messrs Skidelsky, Blair and McCain. He said: "Surrounded by congregated multitudes, I now imagine that . . . I behold the nations of the earth recovering that liberty which they so long had lost; and that the people of this island are . . . disseminating the blessings of civilization and freedom among cities, kingdoms and nations. " Now, who could have uttered such an unholy wish, so redolent of George Bush, Tony Blair, the neo-cons, and other assorted ruffians?
(click above for article)
"Carthago Delenda Est" – these were the words uttered by Cato repeatedly to persuade his peers to destroy Carthage. The Third Punic War gives the lie to the thesis, touted by McCain and Tony Blair, that "democracies never go to war against each other". The League of Democracies is just an idea for the democracies to remove all checks on their powers.
Excerpt:
Now, why is it that democracies want to spread democracy, but autocracies don't want to spread autocracy?
It's something in the DNA, of course. I have argued that the flipside of "freedom" has been "slavery", which was widely practiced in the west, but not elsewhere . Western civilisation has been a civilisation of domination. Another Englishman made statements similar to Messrs Skidelsky, Blair and McCain. He said: "Surrounded by congregated multitudes, I now imagine that . . . I behold the nations of the earth recovering that liberty which they so long had lost; and that the people of this island are . . . disseminating the blessings of civilization and freedom among cities, kingdoms and nations. " Now, who could have uttered such an unholy wish, so redolent of George Bush, Tony Blair, the neo-cons, and other assorted ruffians?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
the current governor-general of Bangladesh
:The Daily Star: Internet Edition
The current governor-general of Bangladesh, James Moriarty (yes, of Sherlock Holmes fame) is a specialist in civil wars. He was governor-general in Nepal during the civil war, ad now he is in Bangladesh to precipitate another civil war.
He told the press: "we run Bangladesh, and if you don't follow our tail, we're gonna f**k you so hard ***************"
The current governor-general of Bangladesh, James Moriarty (yes, of Sherlock Holmes fame) is a specialist in civil wars. He was governor-general in Nepal during the civil war, ad now he is in Bangladesh to precipitate another civil war.
He told the press: "we run Bangladesh, and if you don't follow our tail, we're gonna f**k you so hard ***************"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
